Former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, has been acquitted and discharged on two counts and ordered to open his defence on nine others, in a ruling delivered by the Accra High Court on Thursday.
The court, presided over by Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga, delivered its ruling on a submission of no case, in the case of the Republic v. Kwabena Adu-Boahene and two others, from 1:15 p.m. to 2:52 p.m.
The prosecution was represented by the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, while Samuel Atta Akyea appeared for the accused persons.
In the ruling, the court reviewed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses.
The first prosecution witness (PW1), Frank Anane Dekpey, a former taxi driver and chauffeur, who worked for the accused person, testified that he withdrew monies on the direction of Adu Boahene, first accused (A1) and handed them to him and sometimes to the third prosecution witness (PW3) Mildred Donkor.
The second prosecution witness (PW2), Edith Ruby Opokua Adumuah, Head of Finance at the National Signals Bureau (NSB), said the Bureau operates two accounts, one at the Bank of Ghana and one at Fidelity Bank, and that the three cheques she wrote were paid into the operations account of the Bureau at Fidelity Bank.
She added that the first accused did some pre-financing of some of their activities.
PW3 testified that she was acting on the instructions of the first accused to transfer funds either between bank accounts and through cheque withdrawals and payments, and that she also made transfers and withdrawals to Vertex Solutions.
On count one, stealing GH¢27.1 million, the court held that at this stage it was not the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution, the court said, had led sufficient evidence that the money belonged to the Government of Ghana and it is now up to the accused to lead evidence proving otherwise and to say what they knew about the matters testified to by opening their defence.
The court said it was satisfied that the state had led sufficient evidence that the first accused appropriated GH¢27.1 million belonging to the state, thereby denying the state the benefit of the said money, and that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses under this count had not been discredited.
On count two, stealing GH¢1 million, the court said that since the count was also on stealing, save for the amount, it would hold its finding in the first count.
It held that the first accused appropriated GH¢1 million, that the appropriation was dishonest and that the money belonged to the Government of Ghana.
The prosecution, the court said, had introduced sufficient evidence against the first accused to warrant his being called upon to open his defence.
On count three, stealing GH¢21 million, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to require the accused to open his defence.
On count four, conspiracy to steal GH¢49.1 million, which involves both the first and second accused persons, the court said the evidence showed that the second accused is the sole shareholder of the third accused.
The evidence, so far, the court said, showed that the two accused persons agreed to steal the sum of GH¢49.1 million and the two would need to put up a defence to the charge.
On count five, defrauding by false pretences, the court acquitted and discharged the first accused. The court held that the prosecution had not led any evidence as to the representation made by the first accused that allowed him to move the GH¢49.1 million to the BNC Communications Bureau Limited account.
Since the prosecution’s case seemed to suggest that the first accused was dealing with himself without requiring approval of any person by which a false statement would have been made, the court held that the charge did not arise.
On count six, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, the court said it had already established the movement of funds totalling GH¢49.1 million to the BNC account and that those monies belonged to the state, and that the first accused caused those monies to be moved to the account, thereby, denying the state the opportunity to use the money.
The court noted a letter from the Israeli company stating that the cybersecurity device had been supplied to the BNC, while the prosecution tendered an inventory of the National Signals Bureau that did not include the said cybersecurity device.
There was, the court said, a triable issue as to whether a cybersecurity device had been supplied to the BNC. There was evidence to show that the first accused caused financial loss to the state, and he was called upon to open his defence on that count.
On count seven, using public office for profit, the court held that there was sufficient evidence in support of the count. There was evidence that the first accused withdrew GH¢600,000 and deposited GH¢5,300 into the third accused’s account and on the same day withdrew GH¢50,000. Since monies were moved from the Director of the BNC to an account of a company of which the second accused is not only a director but also a shareholder and the second accused is the wife of the first accused and therefore an associate of the first accused, the prosecution had led sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case to warrant the first accused mounting a defence.
On count eight, collaboration to commit a crime, the court held that there was evidence of collaboration by the second accused in support of the first accused.
On count nine, obtaining public property by false statements, the court held that it had already held that there was no evidence that the first accused sought permission from anyone resulting in a false representation. The first accused was accordingly acquitted and discharged on count nine.
On count ten, money laundering, involving all three accused persons, the court held that the prosecution had established prima facie the predicate offence of stealing, and had established prima facie that the three accused persons allowed themselves to be used to commit money laundering. They were therefore called upon to open their defence on that count.
On count eleven, conspiracy to commit money laundering, the court said it would adopt and apply the law under count four on this count, citing the cooperative conduct of the first and second accused persons. The accused persons were called upon to open their defence on count eleven.
In all, the first accused, Kwabena Adu-Boahene, is to open his defence on counts one, two, three, four, six, seven, ten and eleven and is acquitted on counts five and nine.
The second accused, Angela Adjei-Biateng is to open her defence on counts four, eight, ten and eleven.
The third accused, Advantagw Solution, is to open its defence on counts ten and eleven.
After the ruling, the judge informed the accused persons of their rights, explaining that they could choose to testify under oath or to make a statement without oath.
The court directed the accused persons to file witness statements if they so desire on or before December 4, 2026.
The case was adjourned to December 10, 2026 at 9:30 a.m.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
